View Full Version : Unsolved History: Conspiracies to Kill Hitler
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/military-channel/34356-unsolved-history-conspiracies-to-kill-hitler-video.htm
TLAM Strike
09-24-10, 09:18 AM
While Hitler was a despicable human being killing him would have just put someone with some military common sense in charge and probably lengthened the war.
While Hitler was a despicable human being killing him would have just put someone with some military common sense in charge and probably lengthened the war.
Depends on "when". After Stalingrad strategic "common sense" points toward seeking a """negociated""" endgame while you still have an army (so as to avoid an "unconditional surrender").
.
TLAM Strike
09-24-10, 12:23 PM
Depends on "when". After Stalingrad strategic "common sense" points toward seeking a """negociated""" endgame while you still have an army (so as to avoid an "unconditional surrender").
.
I have a feeling Stalin would not have accepted a negotiated end to the war. It would have made him look weak in the eyes of the populous and the military.
Also when Hitler relinquished military planing back to the army general staff look what happened. The Germans attacked at Kursk.
frau kaleun
09-24-10, 12:32 PM
Depends on "when". After Stalingrad strategic "common sense" points toward seeking a """negociated""" endgame while you still have an army (so as to avoid an "unconditional surrender").
.
Yep, I was thinking the same thing. There came a point where any military coup that did away with Hitler would have been motivated by a desire to end the war on the most favorable terms possible, not do a better job fighting it and thus prolong it until victory was achieved. In fact I'd be hard put to believe there was any serious support for a coup within the military except for the express purpose of getting Hitler out of the way to facilitate negotiations with the Allies (or at least the Brits and Americans).
Sailor Steve
09-24-10, 12:34 PM
Given the way it turned out, maybe the entire war was a conspiracy to kill Hitler.
And Roosevelt.
frau kaleun
09-24-10, 12:45 PM
Given the way it turned out, maybe the entire war was a conspiracy to kill Hitler.
On some deep unconscious psychological level, you may be right when it comes to Herr Hitler. Dude had issues and was able to play them out on the grandest of scales... most people who hate life and living that much, don't get the opportunity to bring half the world crashing down around them as an excuse to put an end to their own misery.
...
Also when Hitler relinquished military planing back to the army general staff look what happened. The Germans attacked at Kursk.
They were still under the "influence"!
:DL
.
Yep, I was thinking the same thing. There came a point where any military coup that did away with Hitler would have been motivated by a desire to end the war on the most favorable terms possible, not do a better job fighting it and thus prolong it until victory was achieved. In fact I'd be hard put to believe there was any serious support for a coup within the military except for the express purpose of getting Hitler out of the way to facilitate negotiations with the Allies (or at least the Brits and Americans).
Something along that line. :yep:
And finding a "new role" for Germany as a guardian against the """communist tide""".
.
TLAM Strike
09-24-10, 01:45 PM
Given the way it turned out, maybe the entire war was a conspiracy to kill Hitler.
And Roosevelt.
don't forget Mussolini... and Tojo... and Boris III and Prince Kiril... and Tiso... and Szalasi... and Petain... and Antonescu...
frau kaleun
09-24-10, 01:48 PM
Something along that line. :yep:
And finding a "new role" for Germany as a guardian against the """communist tide""".
.
Yes, wasn't that one of the things they hoped they could pull off - a separate peace with the western Allies, allowing them to focus their efforts on the Russian front? Meanwhile hoping that then the US and UK would withdraw from alliance with the USSR. I think they really believed that getting Hitler out of the way would take unconditional surrender to the Allies in toto off the table and they would have the chance to call at least a few of the shots. :nope:
Given the way it turned out, maybe the entire war was a conspiracy to kill Hitler.
And Roosevelt. :hmmm:
Also when Hitler relinquished military planing back to the army general staff look what happened. The Germans attacked at Kursk.
Hitler was running the shop long before then, time and time again he would over rule the general staff. Russia was one country to many, trying to kill the golden goose laying the golden eggs for Germany was not a smart move.
Jimbuna
09-25-10, 11:36 AM
Yes, wasn't that one of the things they hoped they could pull off - a separate peace with the western Allies, allowing them to focus their efforts on the Russian front? Meanwhile hoping that then the US and UK would withdraw from alliance with the USSR. I think they really believed that getting Hitler out of the way would take unconditional surrender to the Allies in toto off the table and they would have the chance to call at least a few of the shots. :nope:
The major flaw there was the fact that not only did they hope the UK and US would withdraw from their alliance with the USSR but also join with the Germans in fighting the USSR.
Raptor1
09-25-10, 11:39 AM
I have a feeling Stalin would not have accepted a negotiated end to the war. It would have made him look weak in the eyes of the populous and the military.
Also when Hitler relinquished military planing back to the army general staff look what happened. The Germans attacked at Kursk.
Not really, Hitler let the OKH plan Operation Citadel, but it was he who concluded it was best to attack there in the first place; Manstein proposed letting the Red Army attack south of the salient at the Kharkov sector and then enveloping and destroying them in a 'backhand blow'. Also, while he did not mess up the operational details of the plan like he did the previous year, he is responsible for delaying the attack for 2 months in order for the new armoured vehicles to be used in large numbers, which allowed the Red Army much time to prepare.
Operation Citadel was a bloody disaster in wasting all that German Armour for nothing, it should have never happen. Mind you Case Blue should have never happen, over extending the lines was asking for trouble.
frau kaleun
09-25-10, 05:37 PM
The major flaw there was the fact that not only did they hope the UK and US would withdraw from their alliance with the USSR but also join with the Germans in fighting the USSR.
Yeah, exactly... not sure what they were thinking. :DL Maybe something along the lines of "we broke our pact with the Soviets, and so will everybody else." :doh: :nope:
frau kaleun
09-25-10, 05:40 PM
Operation Citadel was a bloody disaster in wasting all that German Armour for nothing, it should have never happen. Mind you Case Blue should have never happen, over extending the lines was asking for trouble.
Generally speaking, there are just so many reasons why a prolonged invasion of Russia (or whatever it's calling itself ATM) is never a great idea. :dead:
JokerOfFate
09-25-10, 06:19 PM
The only reason that the Germans lost the war was the Japanese.
Attacking the US bad idea :nope:. But Italy were the worsed.
Raptor1
09-25-10, 06:21 PM
The only reason that the Germans lost the war was the Japanese.
Attacking the US bad idea :nope:. But Italy were the worsed.
Huh?
Explain further, please.
JokerOfFate
09-25-10, 06:24 PM
What about Italy or Japan??
Raptor1
09-25-10, 06:27 PM
Let's see.
The only reason that the Germans lost the war was the Japanese.
What was it about the Japanese that was 'the only reason the Germans lost the war'? I can think of a whole bunch of different reasons that have nothing to do with the Japanese.
But Italy were the worsed.
The Italians did what, where, when?
TLAM Strike
09-25-10, 06:45 PM
Huh?
Explain further, please.
I think he means that when Japan attacked the US it brought the industrial and manpower might of the USA in on the Allied/Comintern side, while at the same time the Japanese did nothing to draw off the Soviets in the eastern front (Like attack in to Mongolia).
When people think of the Japanese they always jump to the Carriers, the Yamato and the Zero Fighters but they don't think of their Army, it was huge! They started off with 1,700,000 million troops in 51 divisions plus a Marine Corps (Incl. Paras) in the IJN. By the end of the War they had 5.5 million men in the Army.
frau kaleun
09-25-10, 06:50 PM
What was it about the Japanese that was 'the only reason the Germans lost the war'? I can think of a whole bunch of different reasons that have nothing to do with the Japanese.
I expect he means that the attack on Pearl Harbor is what brought the US fully and officially into the conflict, with our declaration of war against Japan resulting in Germany's declaration of war against the United States.
Whether we would've declared war on any or all Axis powers, or had them declare war on us, later rather than sooner without the provocation of Japan's attack is of course debatable. As is the theory that our entry at that particular time was the most important factor in Germany's eventual defeat.
JokerOfFate
09-25-10, 06:55 PM
The Japanese attacked the US of course, sealing Germany's fate with a bit of strategy they may have beaten the Russian alone, but two superpowers knocking on their door... although it was a good start to fight, but due to bad command and strategy not to mention the amount of recourses wasted through "Banzai" and "Kamikaze" attacks and on top of all that their troops don't have the right weapons for the job
The Italians... well they didn't have a clue what they were doing, I think Africa was where they show just bad they play ball, very bad leadership with bad quality equipment and to add to that I dough the troops had any combat Exp.. But to be fair the Brits had a strategy.
Maybe if Germany had better allies they might of won the war :hmmm:
I think that should do. :DL
JokerOfFate
09-25-10, 06:58 PM
Question:
If the Brits and the France were allied to Poland and Declared war on Germany when they attacked, Did they Declare war on Russia when they attacked Poland as well or am I missing something?
Raptor1
09-25-10, 07:03 PM
Ah, that. Very well, but it's hardly the only reason Germany lost the war. I can't see them winning had they done mostly the same things they did without the US intervening. By the time the US entered the war, Operation Typhoon had already failed and the Soviets had launched their Winter counteroffensive, which means the Germans already got the closest they had to actually winning the war in the east (Yes, I know, debatable).
The Italian performance was indeed pretty bad, but they weren't really a net loss for the Germans. They wouldn't have been better off without them...I think...
I think he means that when Japan attacked the US it brought the industrial and manpower might of the USA in on the Allied/Comintern side, while at the same time the Japanese did nothing to draw off the Soviets in the eastern front (Like attack in to Mongolia).
When people think of the Japanese they always jump to the Carriers, the Yamato and the Zero Fighters but they don't think of their Army, it was huge! They started off with 1,700,000 million troops in 51 divisions plus a Marine Corps (Incl. Paras) in the IJN. By the end of the War they had 5.5 million men in the Army.
How useful would this army have been against the Soviets in 1941 or 1942? Not only was it bogged down or otherwise in action in China, Burma and the Pacific, it was also very poorly equipped and trained for an open land war.
They've certainly proven pretty bad at it in 1939 and 1945.
Question:
If the Brits and the France were allied to Poland and Declared war on Germany when they attacked, Did they Declare war on Russia when they attacked Poland as well or am I missing something?
No, they didn't.
JokerOfFate
09-25-10, 07:19 PM
You mean Russia got let of the hook. I don't the British for not doing it tho :haha:
With hindsight, I think that Germany had not entered the eastern front, as Red Army had done it, sooner or later
With hindsight, I think that Germany had not entered the eastern front, as Red Army had done it, sooner or later
Not so sure If "expansion" was in Stalin's plans. The Soviet Army was still suffering from the recent "purges". Stalin was in a phase of "stabilizing" the Soviet Union, deepening his control over party and state, "industralization", etc. Not so sure he was planning to teach the rest of the world about the benefits communism the "hard" way. He was still "convincing" the people back home :D.
.
A real explanation, we learn, but probably not get the subject of discussion can be endless
Generally speaking, there are just so many reasons why a prolonged invasion of Russia (or whatever it's calling itself ATM) is never a great idea. :dead:
The only thing Hitler got right was 1941 as the Red Army was in transition apart from that, Barbarossa was pants! It all comes down to logistics and most part the Germans used horse power!
Raptor1
09-26-10, 08:27 AM
The Swedes and the French had similar problems in Russia...
But then we go back in history.... :hmmm:
The only thing Hitler got right was 1941 as the Red Army was in transition apart from that, Barbarossa was pants! It all comes down to logistics and most part the Germans used horse power!
Well if he had stuck to his initial plan... Don't forget that after the ill fated Italian attack on Greece in Autumn '40 and the Yugoslavian overthrow of a pro Nazi regime in Winter '41, he diverted assets to the balkans and lost time to initiate Barbarossa. Of course even if he blitzed Leningrad and paraded in Moscow, as planned, the question is would that be enough? Because the problem is that "European" Russia is just a part of Russia...and Siberia is just plain BIG. :DL
.
Raptor1
09-26-10, 02:34 PM
Well if he had stuck to his initial plan... Don't forget that after the ill fated Italian attack on Greece in Autumn '40 and the Yugoslavian overthrow of a pro Nazi regime in Winter '41, he diverted assets to the balkans and lost time to initiate Barbarossa. Of course even if he blitzed Leningrad and paraded in Moscow, as planned, the question is would that be enough? Because the problem is that "European" Russia is just a part of Russia...and Siberia is just plain BIG. :DL
.
The Balkans were never a fatal delay to Barbarossa, it could only have been launched a couple of weeks before it actually was because of the weather, as the late Russian mud season only ended in early June.
Jimbuna
09-26-10, 03:04 PM
Of course even if he blitzed Leningrad and paraded in Moscow, as planned, the question is would that be enough? Because the problem is that "European" Russia is just a part of Russia...and Siberia is just plain BIG. :DL
Quite....the German advance into European Russia simply meant more emphasis was placed on the factories that were moved as well as those already in situ in Siberia.
Raptor1
09-26-10, 03:13 PM
Moscow was a pretty critical railway hub, though, most notably for connecting the Trans-Siberian Railroad to the Soviet European railway system and for being the main communication line between the northern and southern sections of the front. I don't think losing it would have necessarily meant the end of the war for the Soviets, but it would have been a pretty big hit to the Red Army's supply lines.
Jimbuna
09-26-10, 03:18 PM
Didn't Napolean also think that in the 19th century? :DL
The Balkans were never a fatal delay to Barbarossa, it could only have been launched a couple of weeks before it actually was because of the weather, as the late Russian mud season only ended in early June.
Statements from Field Marshal Keitel:
Link: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Keitel/Keitel.zip (http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Keitel/Keitel.zip), page 153
Of course one can only muse on what might have been had things only worked out differently. Even if it was too much to ask of our good fortune that Italy should have stayed out of the war altogether as a benevolent neutral, just consider the difference if Hitler had been able to prevent
their irresponsible attack on Greece. What would we not have saved by way of aid to Italy for her senseless Balkan war? In all probability there would not have been any uprising in Yugoslavia in an attempt to force her entry into the war on the side of the enemies of the Axis, just to oblige Britain and the Soviet Union. How differently things would then have looked in Russia in 1941. We would have been in a far stronger position, and above all we should not have lost those two months. Just imagine: we would not have frozen to a standstill in the snow and ice, with temperatures of minus forty-five degrees just twenty miles outside
Moscow, a city hopelessly encircled from the north, west and south, at the end of that November. We should have had two clear months before that infernal cold weather closed in - and there was nothing like it in the
winters that followed anyway!
And also (from the Nuremberg Trial, Ithink): "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general, and others would have been accused and would be occupying this seat as defendants today".
Anyway, even If the rivers were swolen they wouldn't just put one of the largst invading forces ever "on hold" just outside the Soviet borders. Call it "mobilization inertia" (:)) if you want, but they would have pressed on.
I still maintain, though that even if they succeeded in fullfilling Barbarossa's objectives it would not be enough in the end.
.
Moscow was a pretty critical railway hub, though, most notably for connecting the Trans-Siberian Railroad to the Soviet European railway system and for being the main communication line between the northern and southern sections of the front. I don't think losing it would have necessarily meant the end of the war for the Soviets, but it would have been a pretty big hit to the Red Army's supply lines.
Problem was Hitler was farting around, one minute he was gunning for Leningrad and stuff Moscow the next he sees Moscow as the main target. The only thing he got right was to deal with the salient at Kiev before Moscow.
TLAM Strike
09-26-10, 03:34 PM
Didn't Napolean also think that in the 19th century? :DL
Napolean didn't have aircraft, or tanks, or radios etc... :03:
Jimbuna
09-26-10, 03:35 PM
Napolean didn't have aircraft, or tanks, or radios etc... :03:
True....but neither did the Russians :DL:03:
TLAM Strike
09-26-10, 03:36 PM
True....but neither did the Russians :DL:03: Which time? :O:
Raptor1
09-26-10, 03:43 PM
Statements from Field Marshal Keitel:
Link: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Keitel/Keitel.zip (http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Keitel/Keitel.zip), page 153
And also (from the Nuremberg Trial, Ithink): "The unbelievable strong resistance of the Greeks delayed by two or more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different in the eastern front and in the war in general, and others would have been accused and would be occupying this seat as defendants today".
Anyway, even If the rivers were swolen they wouldn't just put one of the largst invading forces ever "on hold" just outside the Soviet borders. Call it "mobilization inertia" (:)) if you want, but they would have pressed on.
I still maintain, though that even if they succeeded in fullfilling Barbarossa's objectives it would not be enough in the end.
.
Keitel has many reasons to blame the failure of Barbarossa on the Balkan campaign, he's hardly objective.
The original date for Barbarossa was May 15th, that's a month and one week, not 'two or more months'. Besides that; yes, the mud season would have put the German invasion on hold; the mud season in Russia was very serious for military operations. In October the Russian mud season impeded Operation Typhoon even more than the frozen winter did later on.
Actually Napoleon found it out the hard way. He marched into Moscow, went sight-seeing and then ... ????? He just rediscovered the meaning of "supply line" and "supply depot". He had a "line" and he just had occupied the "depot" but there was no supply....
.
Raptor1
09-26-10, 03:48 PM
Napoleon never actually intended to take Moscow when he marched into Russia, IIRC his primary objective was to destroy the Russian army in a decisive battle and thereby knock Russia out. This, of course, didn't work against the reorganized Russian army.
Barbarossa would have happened earlier
Jimbuna
09-27-10, 05:52 AM
Actually Napoleon found it out the hard way. He marched into Moscow, went sight-seeing and then ... ????? He just rediscovered the meaning of "supply line" and "supply depot". He had a "line" and he just had occupied the "depot" but there was no supply....
.
Napoleon never actually intended to take Moscow when he marched into Russia, IIRC his primary objective was to destroy the Russian army in a decisive battle and thereby knock Russia out. This, of course, didn't work against the reorganized Russian army.
It was never envisaged such lengthy advances would be possible so the supply train whilst being adequate on paper was overly extended and eventually unable to cope with the demand.
Add to that the barren land that denied the French their usual 'foraging' needs and the fact Moscow was left without any supplies for the victors to fuel themselves with....the rest is history.
The overall outcome was a serious weakening of the Grand Armee, one from which it would never recover.
Time for Wellington to put the 'boot' in about 2 1/2 years later :DL
Raptor1
09-27-10, 06:31 AM
It was never envisaged such lengthy advances would be possible so the supply train whilst being adequate on paper was overly extended and eventually unable to cope with the demand.
Add to that the barren land that denied the French their usual 'foraging' needs and the fact Moscow was left without any supplies for the victors to fuel themselves with....the rest is history.
The overall outcome was a serious weakening of the Grand Armee, one from which it would never recover.
Time for Wellington to put the 'boot' in about 2 1/2 years later :DL
The Sixth Coalition put the 'boot' in as early as October the following year, no need to wait for Wellington...
Jimbuna
09-27-10, 08:34 AM
The Sixth Coalition put the 'boot' in as early as October the following year, no need to wait for Wellington...
Not properly....Napolean returned with an army after that :DL
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.